image/svg+xml
139
XI/2/2020
INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Geophysical Investigations of the Bronze Age Andreevskoye Settlement in
the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
Vladislav Noskevich
a*
, Natalia Fedorova
a
a
Institute of Geophysics Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Amundsen Street 100, 620049 Yekaterinburg, Russia
1. Introduction
At the end of the 20
th
century, vast settlements attributed to
the Bronze Age (21
st
–18
th
century BC) were discovered in
Russia, in the steppe zone of the Southern Urals (Figure 1)
(Gening
et al.
, 1992). The earliest stage of the investigation
was related to the decoding of aerial photos that allowed the
specialists to discover and identify the majority of Sintashta –
Arkaim – type settlements (Zdanovich and Batanina, 2007).
The Sintashta settlements are typical by enclosed systems of
fortifcation in contrast to other steppe Eurasian Bronze Age
sites. The internal space has a very structured organization
and it is almost entirely occupied by standard buildings that
are organized into regular blocks. The total area of individual
settlements ranges from 0.8 to 3.5 ha. The architecture of
the settlements is almost completely destroyed; the earth
walls of fortifcations, ditches and housing depressions have
been ploughed up. In modern times, the leading role played
by geophysical research has directed investigations to the
detection of the inner structure of sites.
Geophysical methods have been applied in archaeology
for more than half a century. Resistivity methods and
magnetometry have been applied in Europe since the 1950s
(Atkinson, 1952; Aitken, 1974). Electromagnetic profling
and GPR surveying were introduced into archaeology in the
1980s–1990s (Dalan, 1991; Dabas
et al.
, 2000). Signifcant
advances in the study of various archaeological sites have been
achieved using geophysical methods (Gafney
et al.
, 2002,
Epov
et al.
, 2016). Magnetic gradient surveys (Fassbinder,
2019), electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) (Tsokas
et al.
,
2008) and ground penetrating radar (GPR) (Conyers, 2016)
constitute the most informative geophysical methods for
conducting archaeological research. In Siberia, the magnetic
gradient method developed by German geophysicists has been
successfully applied at the Chicha settlement (Late Bronze
Age) which covers an area 400×200 m (8 ha) (Becker and
Fassbinder, 1999; Molodin
et al.
, 2002).
Geophysical studies of several Sintashta fortifed
settlements (Arkaim, Kamennyi Ambar, Konoplynka,
Volume XI ● Issue 2/2020 ● Pages 139–147
*Corresponding author. E-mail:
ubistu@gmail.com
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: 23
rd
March 2020
Accepted: 19
th
October 2020
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24916/iansa.2020.2.1
Key words:
magnetic survey
ground penetrating radar
Bronze Age
archaeological site
South Urals
Russia
ABSTRACT
The settlements and cemeteries of the Sintashta – type (21
st
–18
th
century BC) are concentrated in
the southern Trans-Urals steppe. The earliest stage of investigations was related to the decoding of
aerial photos that allowed specialists to discover and identify the majority of the settlements. This
report presents the results of a geophysical investigation at the Andreevskoye settlement, where
we conducted micro-magnetic and ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys. Magnetic studies have
provided new information on the structure of the fortifcations and the number and location of
houses in the settlements during their occupancy, as well as on the many wells discovered inside the
houses. Drawing on our data, a new plan of the settlement was produced, more accurate than the one
prepared solely from interpretations of aerial photographs. The settlement consists of multiple layers
and is characterized by a complex confguration formed from three rectangular systems of defensive
structures. We obtained GPR deep sections along three profles, indicating the ditches and dwellings of
the ancient settlement under sediments and the ruins of walls. Based on these data, we conclude that
the depth from the modern surface of the earth to the occupation layer in the dwellings of the ancient
settlement is approximately 50–70 cm. Our results provide archaeologists with reliable data that are
necessary for the selection of excavation sites.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 139–147
Vladislav Noskevich, Natalia Fedorova: Geophysical Investigations of the Bronze Age Andreevskoye Settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
140
Ustye, Sarym-Sakly, Ulak,
etc.
) have been carried out
(Tibelius, 1995; Merrony
et al.
, 2009; Noskevich
et al.
,
2012; Patzelt, 2013; Hanks
et al
, 2013; Fedorova
et al.
,
2014; Bakhshiev
et al.
, 2018). Geomagnetic prospection
has been efective in the investigation of fortifcations
and interiors due to a great variety of soils with magnetic
properties higher than the surrounding ground. Magnetic
anomalies reveal the exact position of outer defensive walls
and ditches, the layout of buildings inside the settlements,
and the existence of wells, household pits and ovens. The
maps of magnetic anomalies indicate sites for further, more-
detailed, study using archaeological and other geophysical
methods, thus signifcantly reducing the risk of conducting
blind excavations. GPR surveying allows the structure of
fortifcations to be determined, as well as the depth of ditches
and wells to be inferred (Noskevich
et al.
, 2012; Epimakhov
et al.
, 2016).
As a part of the continuing geophysical research on the
Sintashta-Arkaim settlements, this article presents our latest
results regarding the Andreevskoye site. The micro-magnetic
gradient survey covered the whole territory of the settlement
(200×240 m), while the GPR survey was conducted in
several sections of the fortifcations.
2. Brief description of the Andreevskoye settlement
The ruins of the Andreevskoye fortifed settlement attributed
to the Bronze Age are located on the left bank of the
Sintashta River (7.7 km southeast of the Andreevsky village,
Chelyabinsk region, Russia). The modern riverbed, together
with the ancient one, form a peninsula (Figure 2a).
The site is located on the very edge of the foodplain
terrace, on the bank of the ancient riverbed of the Sintashta
River. No full-scale archaeological excavations have been
carried out at this site. Small exploration works had been
carried out in two pits in the northern and southern parts of
the settlement (Tairov
et al.
, 1995). Fragments of ceramics
presumably belonging to the Sintashta culture (21
st
–18
th
centuries BC) were found. In similar settlements (Kamennyi
Ambar, Bersaut,
etc.
), radiocarbon analysis confrms these
dates (Epimakhov, Krause, 2013). The total dating interval
for Sintashta constitutes the period 2010–1770 BC. (Molodin
et al.
, 2014).
The ruins of the defensive ditches and walls outline
the borders of the site. The settlement has multiple layers
and is characterised by a complex confguration, which is
formed by three rectangular systems of defensive structures
Figure 1.
Trans-Ural with the fortifed
settlements of the Sintashta-Petrovka
group (1–21) and the Andreevskoye
settlement (19); after Zdanovich, Batanina,
(2007).
1 – Stepnoye; 2 – Chernorechye
II; 3 – Bakhta; 4 – Paris (Astafevskoe);
5 – Ustye; 6 – Chekatay; 7 – Kuisak;
8 – Sarym-Sakly; 9 – Rodniki; 10 – Isiney;
11 – Konoplanka; 12 – Zhurumbay;
13 – Kamennyi Ambar; 14 – Kizilskoe;
15 – Arkaim; 16 – Kamysty; 17 – Sintashta;
18 – Sintashta II; 19 – Andreevskoye;
20 – Alandskoye; 21 – Bersout.
0 100 km
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 139–147
Vladislav Noskevich, Natalia Fedorova: Geophysical Investigations of the Bronze Age Andreevskoye Settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
141
(Tairov
et al.
, 1995). Drawing on aerial photographs
and ground-based archaeological research, a plan of the
settlement had been produced (Zdanovich and Batanina,
2007), featuring three settlements (A, B and C) that
were heterogeneous in time (Figure 2b). The earliest is
settlement A. Settlement B emerged in the southern part of
settlement A after it ceased to be used. Settlement C, which
appeared when settlement B was still in operation, refects
the late stage in the life of the settlement.
The photographs revealed that the ruins of defensive walls
vary from 2.5 to 15 metres. Zdanovich and Batanina (2007)
interpret the numerous gaps in them as entrances to the
settlements. Their plan shows 9 entrances. There are housing
depressions within the settlement, with their sizes ranging
from 3×5 m to 10×23 m.
According to the archaeological excavations, the
inhabitants of the settlements like Sintashta – Arkaim were
mainly engaged in cattle breeding (Koryakova
et al.
, 2018).
Preliminary results of isotope studies indicate that in the
frst half of the 2
nd
millennium BC, both people and animals
(herds) did not leave the river valley for long distances,
leading, in general, a sedentary lifestyle (Koryakova
et al.
,
2019).
3. Micro-magnetic survey
The territory of the site constitutes an area of 200×240 m
(Figure 2), which was covered by the magnetic survey (at
a scale of 1:50). For convenience in conducting the survey,
this territory was divided into square sections (40×40 m),
with one of the sides being aligned with the magnetic
meridian. The modulus of magnetic induction was measured
in each square with 0.5 m station spacing and 0.5 m line
spacing. In order to reduce the errors associated with the
operator and data acquisition equipment, all measurements
were performed in one direction – from south to north.
Measurements were made using gradient magnetometers
(a Canadian SM-5 Navmag and a Russian MMPG-1), with
their sensors being arranged vertically at heights of 0.3 and
2 m from the surface of the earth, respectively.
When performing measurements using MMPG-1, the
lower sensor of the magnetometer was located exactly above
the station. The survey error came to ±1 nT. Measurements
with the SM-5 Navmag gradient magnetometer were
performed continuously, with the recording interval being
set at 1 second; the coordinates of the measurement points
were determined using a GPS receiver (Garmin 78, USA)
with waypoint averaging method accuracy less than ±3 m.
Studies have shown that continuous mode increases the
measurement error to ±3 nT, mainly due to inaccuracies
in coordinate references. On the magnetic map, this is
manifested in the slightly blurred features of anomalies.
Given that the anomalies over the fortifcation reach 5–25 nT,
we have been able to determine the position of the defensive
walls, as well as other walls within the settlement.
4. Magnetic map and the reconstruction
of the settlement plan
Drawing on the results of feld measurements, a map of
magnetic anomalies was produced, which constitutes the
diference between the measured values of the modulus of
magnetic induction at the heights of 0.3 m and 2 m (Figure 3a).
We performed calculations and generated derivative maps in
diferent directions, which more clearly identify anomalies
caused by fortifcations and the inner walls dividing the
space into housing sectors – dwellings. Using these data, the
plan of the settlement was reconstructed (Figure 3b).
Linear magnetic anomalies reveal the position of defensive
walls. Geophysical and archaeological studies carried out at
the excavations of other Bronze-Age settlements such as
Kamennyi Ambar and Konoplyanka (Noskevich
et al.
, 2012;
Figure 2.
a: Present view of the Sintashta river valley (Andreevskoe settlement is inside the black rectangle); b: Plan of the settlement based on deciphering
aerial photographs; after Zdanovich, Batanina, (2007). 1 – defensive walls; 2 – ditches; 3 – depressions from houses; 4 – foodplain terrace.
0 400 m
0 40 m
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 139–147
Vladislav Noskevich, Natalia Fedorova: Geophysical Investigations of the Bronze Age Andreevskoye Settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
142
Fedorova
et al.
, 2014) indicate that the defensive walls are
composed of earthen blocks and linear anomalies above the
fortifcation are created by the layers of light-yellow loam
(30–50 cm in thickness). The loam was used to strengthen
the outer surface of the earth wall and the ditch up to its near-
bottom part (Epimakhov
et al.
, 2016).
Unlike the interpretations of photographs, geophysical
studies reveal that the fortifcation walls of all three
settlements had a thickness of 4–5 m. As previously noted,
the thickness of walls in the plan-reconstructed drawing
on the photographs (Figure 2b) varies from 2.5 to 15 m,
as during aerial photography only the ruins of walls were
recorded. Magnetic anomalies help “see” deeper horizons
and infer the size of the foundation for the walls.
The breaks in linear magnetic anomalies above the
defensive walls indicate that the entrance to settlement
A was located in the middle of the eastern wall, whereas
another passage, which, evidently, was preserved during the
functioning of settlement B, was in the middle of the western
wall. Another entrance to this settlement was in the middle
of the eastern fortifcation. The entrance to the additional
southern settlement C was situated in its north-eastern part.
It appears that a section of the southern wall in settlement A
was destroyed, and the ditch there was flled in. The same
conclusion follows from the results of the GPR survey given
in the next section.
Therefore, the magnetic anomalies data do not confrm
the presence of numerous passages in the defensive walls,
discovered using aerial photographs and interpreted as
entrances to the settlement. In addition, the magnetic survey
does not confrm the complex structure of the defensive
system at the entrances to settlements A and B, as well as in the
southern part of the settlement where it separates villages B and
C. Figure 2b shows that thick walls extend beyond settlements
and form corridors having a length of 8–25 m.
The inner walls of villages manifest themselves diferently
in the magnetic feld. The walls of settlement A, adjacent
to the northern fortifcation wall, stand out quite clearly in
the magnetic feld. Negative magnetic anomalies having
a width of 1.5–2 m are observed above them. Eighteen walls
extend from the northern defensive wall, whose length can
be confdently inferred on the basis of magnetic anomalies
(10–20 m). Consequently, there were 19 buildings in this
row. The width of housing sectors varies from 5 to 9 metres.
The position of dwellings adjacent to the northern wall is
consistent with the housing depressions discovered as
a result of interpreting aerial photographs.
A lot of intense positive magnetic anomalies are observed
inside a number of buildings in settlement A, which are
adjacent to the northern fortifcation. It can be assumed that
there was a fre in this part, and as a result of oxidation, the
magnetic minerals of soil and walls containing iron acquired
high magnetisation. The accumulation of this material
reveals the foundation pits of structures. The accumulation
of this material makes it possible to clearly distinguish the
foundations of dwellings.
The next row of dwellings in settlement A is manifested
by low-contrast anomalies on the magnetic map, most of
Figure 3.
Andreevskoye settlement: a: Map of magnetic anomalies (straight lines show the position of the GPR profles); b: Reconstructed settlement plan.
1 – fortifcation walls; 2 – boundary ditches; 3 – interior walls; 4 – well or household pit; 5 – entrances to the settlement.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 139–147
Vladislav Noskevich, Natalia Fedorova: Geophysical Investigations of the Bronze Age Andreevskoye Settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
143
them having a length of 5–10 m. Only in the eastern part
the recorded anomaly a has length of 12–15 m. All these
anomalies were generated by the walls breaking of in the
zone of an extended linear negative anomaly, which is caused
by the ditch of the fortifcation of settlement B.
Along its entire length, the negative anomaly above the
ditch has a fairly constant width of about 5–6 m. On our plan,
the northern edge of this anomaly is indicated by a dashed
line. Therefore, the walls in the second row of dwellings in
settlement A were destroyed during the construction of the
northern fortifcation wall and the ditch of settlement B.
In the south-eastern part of the settlement A, there are
several more dwellings from the third and fourth rows,
whose long walls are parallel to the eastern defensive wall.
The rest of the dwellings in these rows are attributed to the
settlement B. Thus, the frst settlement A consisted of four
rows of dwellings, whose total number could have reached
65–70.
Then, presumably, the population of this settlement
decreased by more than half and the northern part of
settlement A was no longer used. Some of the houses (maybe
25 or 26) in the two southern rows of dwellings were fenced
of with a new fortifcation, thus forming settlement B.
Therefore, geophysical data confrm the conclusion drawn
by Zdanovich and Batanina (2007) that settlement A is the
earliest with settlement B built later.
In settlement B, it is not possible to outline the boundaries
of dwellings as confdently as in the northern part of
settlement A. In most cases, the walls of the houses are
manifested only by low-intensity anomalies of a small
length. Along the southern defensive wall, 12 isometric local
anomalies can be clearly identifed. These anomalies are
observed almost in a straight line, with the distance between
them being approximately the same (8–9 m).
Studies carried out at the excavations of other Bronze-
Age sites (Kamenny Ambar and Konoplyanka) revealed that
similar local anomalies are noted over wells, household pits,
and the remains of ovens (Multidisciplinary investigations,
2013; Fornasier
et al.
, 2014). Local anomalies are also
observed in the northern row of dwellings; however, they
are not positioned as regularly as in the southern row. Thus,
settlement B consisted of two rows of houses and their total
number was reduced to 25. The width and length of the
dwellings came to 8–9 m and 15–20 m, respectively.
Southern village C was divided into 10 sectors, whose
sizes reached 9 m in width and 14–17 m in length. In
some dwellings, anomalies from wells, or household pits,
are observed. Linear magnetic anomalies are observed on
both sides of the southern defensive wall in settlement C,
with their intensity reaching 25 nT and being signifcantly
higher than over the defensive walls of settlements A and
B. It appears that a diferent technology was used in the
construction of the southern fortifcation; both sides of the
wall were strengthened and a diferent material was used.
Perhaps these were bricks or slabs of baked clay.
Thus, magnetic surveys provided new information on the
structure of the fortifcations and the position of dwellings
within settlements during their operation, their number,
as well as on numerous wells identifed inside the houses.
Drawing on these data, a plan of the settlement was produced
which was more accurate than the one prepared on the basis
of the results of interpreting aerial photographs.
5. Ground-penetrating radar survey
In order to study the fortifcations, GPR surveys were carried
out along the profles (Figure 3a) intersecting the eastern and
southern defensive walls of all three settlements. The survey
was conducted using the SIR 3000 GPR system
with 400
MHz and 270 MHz antennae. The profles were 34–42 m in
length, with 0.1 m station spacing.
Obtained radargrams show the amplitudes of the refected
electromagnetic waves, with the positive part of the wave
being marked black and the negative one being marked white.
The raw data on the ordinate axis indicate the time of waves
propagating from the antenna to the refector and back to the
receiver. Time-depth conversion requires the estimation of
the velocity of electromagnetic waves, which depends on the
physical properties of soils. To that end, measurements were
performed along an additional 15 m profle with 0.1 m station
spacing according to the common-depth-point method using
two 100 MHz antennae.
The velocity of electromagnetic waves was estimated
according to the cross-correlation of traces in a gather using
a module of the RADAN 7 software (GSSI, 2008). As a result,
the velocity was estimated at 0.135 m/ns. The obtained value
is consistent with the tabulated values of the velocity range
(0.122 m/ns–0.150 m/ns) for dry loams making up soil in
the study area (Finkelshteyn
et al.
, 1986; Conyers, 2016). At
a known value of wave velocity, the time-depth conversion
was completed for these sections.
Figures 4–6 show the results of the GPR 3 surveys and
its interpretation, with highlighting for the boundaries
of refections from fortifcations and the interior of the
settlements A, B, C interior. Profle 1 intersects the eastern
fortifcations of settlements A and B, as well as partially
the inner structures of settlement A. The remains of these
structures are noted in the interval 12–22 m. In the interval
of 0–12 m, the fortifcations of settlement B (wall and ditch),
superimposed on the remains of the inner buildings of
settlement A, are observed. The walls of the houses indicated
by magnetic anomalies are clearly visible in the deep
section. This indicates a later construction of the fortifcation
in settlement B in the territory of the settlement A. The
most intense refections are noted from the outer ditch in
settlement A (interval 33–39), with the diference in depth
reaching 0.5–0.7 m.
Profle 2 also intersects the eastern fortifcations of
settlements A, B and the structures of settlement A. In
addition, intense refections from the wall separating the
houses in settlement B are observed at the beginning of the
profle. This profle is shorter than profle 1 (only 34 m in
length); it ends above the wall of settlement A.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 139–147
Vladislav Noskevich, Natalia Fedorova: Geophysical Investigations of the Bronze Age Andreevskoye Settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
144
Figure 4.
Results of the GPR (270 MHz)
measurement processing and possible
interpretation of the profle 1.
Figure 5.
Results of the GPR (270 MHz)
measurement processing and possible
interpretation of the profle 2.
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 139–147
Vladislav Noskevich, Natalia Fedorova: Geophysical Investigations of the Bronze Age Andreevskoye Settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
145
Figure 6.
Results of the GPR (270 MHz)
measurement processing and possible
interpretation of the profle 3.
Profle 3 starts at the junction of the south-eastern wall in
settlement B and the southern wall in village A, then running
across settlement C and its southern fortifcation. The section
reveals that the remains of the southern wall in settlement A
are much more destroyed, with the surface elevation
coming to 10 cm, as compared to the outer defensive wall
in settlement C. The changes in the modern relief associated
with this wall come to 30 cm.
In addition, in the interval of 21–24 m, profle 3 intersects
a local magnetic anomaly created by an ancient well or
a utility pit. The section clearly shows refections from
the walls of a well at depths of 0.5–0.9 m. Therefore, the
foor of the structure is currently at a depth of 0.5 m. The
interval of 6–9 m reveals weak refections from the edges of
the ditch located on the outside of the wall in settlement A.
Evidently, this ditch was flled up during the construction of
settlement C.
A comparison of the schematic plan of the settlement
prepared on the basis of the magnetic survey with the results
of the GPR survey allows us to conclude that the remains of
the walls of houses, and even a well, indicated by magnetic
anomalies are clearly visible in deep sections. Drawing
on the interpretation, we can infer that the depth from the
modern surface of the earth to the occupation layer in the
dwellings of the ancient settlement comes to 50–70 cm. The
ditches surrounding the villages were shallow (0.5–1 m) and
2–4 m in width.
Zdanovich and Batanina (2007) concluded that settlement C
was the most recent, based on the height of the ramparts
above the fortifcations. We also draw this conclusion from
the measurements on the GPR profles. Figures 4–6 show that
the height of the ramparts above the defensive walls of the
settlement A and B is 0.1–0.3 m, and above the wall of the
settlement C is much higher – circa 0.5 m.
6. Conclusion
Geophysical studies have helped reconstruct a detailed plan
of the Andreevskoye site, featuring three settlements A, B and
C, that were heterogeneous in time. Like other settlements
of the Sintashta-Arkaim type, all three settlements (A, B
and C) were surrounded by closed fortifcation systems.
The external defensive walls were about 4–5 m thick. The
ditches surrounding the villages were shallow, 0.5–1 m and
2–4 m in width. The interior space had a very structured
organization and was almost entirely occupied by standard
buildings arranged in regular blocks. The width and length
of the dwellings came to 8–9 m and 15–20 m.
Our studies have confrmed the time sequence of the
development phases of the settlement, established as
a result of archaeological excavations (Tairov
et al.
, 1995)
and interpretation of aerial photographs (Zdanovich and
Batanina, 2007). New details have been revealed about the
layout of settlements, the location of wells, the size of houses
and their number at diferent stages.
The earliest settlement A had a rectangular shape
(165×100 m) and consisted of four rows of dwellings
divided by two streets. The total number of houses was
approximately 65–70.
Then it appears the population of this settlement decreased
by more than half and the northern part of settlement A was
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 139–147
Vladislav Noskevich, Natalia Fedorova: Geophysical Investigations of the Bronze Age Andreevskoye Settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
146
no longer used. Some of the houses in the two southern
rows of dwellings were fenced of with a new fortifcation,
in this way forming settlement B. Thus, settlement B had a
rectangular shape (115×60 m) and the total number of houses
was reduced to 25–26.
Southern settlement C which appeared when settlement B
was still occupied, refects the late stage in the life of the
settlement. This annex was also rectangular in shape
(95×25 m), consisting of only one row of houses and was
divided into 10 buildings.
Intensive local anomalies were found inside the dwellings
of settlements B and C, which were created by wells and
household pits.
We obtained GPR sections along three profles, indicating
the ditches and probably the dwellings of the ancient
settlement under the sediments and ruins of walls. Based on
our data, we can conclude that the depth from the modern
surface to the occupation layer in the dwellings of the ancient
settlement comes to 0.5–0.7 m.
Acknowledgments
We express our appreciation and gratitude to the
Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Science
P.S. Martyshko for his interest in geophysical research in
archaeology. Thanks to his eforts, we have received modern
geophysical instruments.
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers who showed
interest in our work and made helpful comments to improve
our manuscript.
This work received fnancial support from the Institute of
Geophysics Ural Branch Russian Academy of Science.
References
AITKEN, M.J., 1974.
Physics and Archaeology
. 2
nd
ed., Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
ATKINSON, R.J.C., 1952. Méthodes électriques de prospection en
archeologie. In: A. Laming, ed.
La découverte de passé
. Paris: Picard,
pp. 59–70.
CONYERS,
L.B., 2016.
Ground-penetrating Radar for Geoarchaeology.
Analytical Methods in Earth and Environmental Science.
New York:
Wiley Publishing.
BAKHSHIEV, I.I.
,
NOSKEVICH, V.V., NASRETDINOV, R.R., 2018.
Geophysical and remote studies of the Ulak-1 fortifed settlement of
the Bronze age in Bashkir Trans-Urals: the correlation of the obtained
data with the results of the archaeological excavations.
Povolzhskaya
Arkheologiya
, 3 (25), 30–44.
BECKER, H., FASSBINDER, J.W.E., 1999. Magnetometry of a Scythian
settlement near Chicha in the Baraba Steppe. In:
Archaeological
Prospection
. Arbeitshefte des Bayerischen Landesamt für Denkmalpfege,
108. Munich, pp. 168–172.
DABAS, M., CAMERLYNCK, C., FREIXAS I CAMPS, P., 2000.
Simultaneous use of electrostatic quadrupole and GPR in urban context:
Investigation of the basement of the Cathedral of Girona (Catalunya,
Spain).
Geophysics,
65(2), 526–532.
DALAN, R.A., 1991. Defning archaeological features with electromagnetic
surveys at the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site.
Geophysics
, 56(8),
1280–1287.
EPIMAKHOV, A.V., BERSENEVA, N.A., FEDOROVA, N.V.,
NOSKEVICH, V.V., 2016. Geophysics and archaeology of Bronze Age
settlements – A Case Study from Kamennyi Ambar Fortifed Settlement
(South Urals). In
: Proceedings 22
nd
European Meeting of Environmental
and Engineering Geophysics. Near Surface Geoscience 2016.
Barcelona,
September 2016
. Barcelona: European Association of Geoscientists and
Engineers. DOI:10.3997/2214-4609.201602029
EPIMAKHOV, A.V., KRAUSE, R., 2013. Relative and absolute chronology
of the settlement Kamennyi Ambar. In: R. Krause and L.N. Koryakova,
eds.
Multidisciplinary investigations of the Bronze Age settlements in
the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt Publishing,
pp. 129–146.
EPOV, M.I., MANSHTEIN, A.K., BALKOV, E.V., DYADKOV, P.G.,
MATASOVA, G.G., BORTNIKOVA, S.B., KARIN, Y.G., KULESHOV,
D.A., MOLODIN, V.I., KAZANSKY, A.Y., POZDNYAKOVA, O.A.,
2016. Integrated archaeological and geophysical studies in West Siberia.
Russian Geology and Geophysics
, 57(3), 473–482.
FASSBINDER, J.W.E., 2019.
Magnetometry in Archaeology – From
theory to practice.
Rossiyskaya arheologia,
3, 75–91. DOI:10.31857/
S086960630005672-8.
FEDOROVA, N.V., NOSKEVICH, V.V., IVANCHENKO, V.S., BEBNEV,
A.S., MALIKOV, A.V., 2014. A magnetic survey of the bronze age
archaeological settlements in the South Urals.
Geophysical Research,
15(3), 24–37.
FINKELSHTEYN, M.I., KUTEV, V.A., ZOLOTAREV, V.P., 1986.
The use
of radar subsurface sounding in engineering geology.
Moscow: Nedra
Publishing.
FORNASIER, J., KRAUSE, R., KORJAKOVA, L.N., STOBBE, A., RUHL,
L., SCHNEIDER, H., THIEMEEYER, H., PETERS, S., EPIMAKHOV,
A.V., SHARAPOVA, S.V., PANTELEEVA, S.E., MOLCANOV,
I.V., BERSENEVA, N.A., PATZELT, A., NOSKEVICH, V.V., 2014.
Architektur, Wirtschaft und Landschaft der Bronzezeitlichen Siedlungen
am Nordrand der Eurasischen Steppe im Trans-Ural (Russische
Föderation).
Eurasia Antiqua
, 20, 229–272.
HANKS, B.K., CHECHUSHKOV, I.V., DUNAN, R.K., PITMAN, D.,
MUZHICH, B., MEDARICH, I., MORI, M., 2013. Recent results and
prospects of research of the ancient Ustye settlement area and the lower
Toguzak river valley. In: N.B. Vinogradov and A.V. Epimakhov, eds.
Ancient Ustye: A fortifed Bronze Age settlement in the South Trans-
Urals.
Chelyabinsk: Abris, pp. 393–416.
GAFFNEY, C., GATER, J., OVENDEN, S., 2002. The Use of Geophysical
Techniques in Archaeological Evaluations. In: A. Taylor, ed.
Institute of
Field Archaeologists
, 6, p. 22.
GENING, V.F., ZDANOVICH, G.B., GENING, V.V., 1992
.
Sintashta:
Archaeological sites of the Aryan tribes of the Urals-Kazakhstan steppes
.
Chelyabinsk: South Urals Publishing.
GSSI, 2008. SIR-3000, RADAN, http://www.geophysical.com/software.
htm, Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. Salem, NH, USA.
KORYAKOVA,
L.N., KRAUSE, R., SHARAPOVA, S.V., FEDOROVA,
N.V., KOSINTSEV, P.A., ZAYKOV V.V., ANKUSHEV, M.N., 2018.
Enclosed settlements of the Karagaily-Ayat river basin through the prism
of the multidisciplinary approach.
History of Science and Engineering
,
1, 22–36.
KORYAKOVA,
L.N., KRAUSE, R., SHARAPOVA, S.V., PANTELEEVA,
S.E.
,
KOSINTSEV, P.A.
, 2019. Archaeology of the lifestyle (investigating
the Bronze Age sites of the Southern Trans-Urals).
Ural Historical
Journal
, 4(65), 40–51.
MERRONY, C., HANKS, B., DOONAN, R., 2009. Seeking the Process:
The Application of Geophysical Survey on some Early Mining and
Metalworking Sites. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. In:
Universitatsforschungen zur prahistorischen Archaologie
. Bonn:
Metalsand Societies, pp. 421–430.
MOLODIN, V.I., PARZINGER, H., SCHNEEWEIΒ, J., GARKUŠA,
J.N., GRIŠIN, A.E., NOVIKOVA, O.I., EFREMOVA, N.S.,
MARČENKO, Z.V., ČEMJAKINA, M.A., MYLNIKOVA, L.N.,
BECKER, H., FAΒBINDER, J., 2002. Čiča – eine befestigte Ansiedlung
der Übergangsperiode von der Spätbronze zur Früheisenzeit in der
Barabinsker Waldsteppe. Vorbericht der Kampagnen 1999–2001.
Eurasia
Antiqua
, 8, 185–236.
NOSKEVICH, V.V., FEDOROVA, N.V., SOBOLEV, O.L., 2012.
Reconstruction of archaeological fortifed settlements of Southern Ural
Mountains, of the Bronze Age on the magnetic data. In
: Proceedings
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2020 ● XI/2 ● 139–147
Vladislav Noskevich, Natalia Fedorova: Geophysical Investigations of the Bronze Age Andreevskoye Settlement in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
147
18
th
European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics.
Near Surface Geoscience 2012.
Paris September 2012
. Paris: European
Association of Geoscientists and Engineers. DOI: 10.3997/2214-
4609.20143445
PATZELT, A.E.,
2013. Geomagnetic investigation on Bronze Age
settlements at Varshavka, Chelyabinsk Region In: R. Krause and L.N.
Koryakova, eds.
Multidisciplinary investigations of the Bronze Age
settlements in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia)
. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf
Habelt Publishing, pp. 53–66.
TAIROV, A.D., BATANINA, I.M., KUZNETSOVA, O.A., 1995.
Studies
of monuments of the country of cities in 1994.
Archive of the reserve
“Arkaim”. Chelyabinsk.
TIBELIUS, V.Y., 1995. Results of geophysical research on Arkaim. In:
Russia and the East: Problems of interaction.
Chelyabinsk: CSU, pp.
184–193.
TSOKAS, G.N., TSOURLOS, P.I., VARGEMEZIS, G., NOVACK, M.,
2008. Non-destructive electrical resistivity tomography for indoor
investigation: The case of Kapnikarea Church in Athens.
Archaeological
prospection
, 15(1), 24–37.
ZDANOVICH, G.B., BATANINA, I.M., 2007.
Arkaim – country of cities.
Space and images
. Chelyabinsk: Krokus Publishing.
image/svg+xml